ARREARS WEF 01.01.06 MATTER- JUDGMENT/ ORDER OF THE HSC IN THE SLP- CA CASES IS AS FOLLOWS:

ARREARS WEF 01.01.06 MATTER- JUDGMENT/ ORDER OF THE HSC IN THE SLP- CA CASES IS AS FOLLOWS:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.(S). 8875-8876 OF 2011

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
VINOD KUMAR JAIN & ORS. Respondent(s)

WITH

C.A. No.1998 of 2012,
C.A.No.3564 of 2012,
C.A.No.3907 of 2012,
C.A.No.4581 of 2012,
C.A.No.4952 of 2012,
C.A.No.4980 of 2012,
C.A.No.4599 of 2013,
C.A.No.1 of 2015

AND

SLP(C)Nos.36148-36150 of 2013,
SLP(C)No.16780-16782 of 2014 &
SLP(C)No……… of 2015 (CC Nos.16903-16904)
O R D E R
Heard.

Delay condoned.

C.A.Nos.8875-76 of 2011, C.A. No.1998 of 2012, C.A.No.3564 of 2012, C.A.No.3907 of 2012, C.A.No.4581 of 2012, C.A.No.4952 of 2012, C.A.No.4980 of 2012:

We see no reason to interfere with the orders impugned.

The civil appeals are accordingly dismissed.
C.A.No.4599 of 2013, C.A.No.1 of 2015 :

No substantial question of law of general/public importance arises for our consideration in these applications for leave to appeal.

The prayer for leave to appeal is accordingly declined and the applications for leave to appeal dismissed.

SLP(C)Nos.36148-36150 of 2013
SLP(C)No.16780-16782 of 2014 &
SLP(C)Nos………..of 2015 (CC Nos.16903-16904):

We see no reason to interfere with the orders impugned.

The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.

Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General,

however submits that in view of the nature of the controversy as also the extent of financial burden arising out of the implementation of the impugned orders, the petitioners-U.O.I.

may be given reasonable time to do the needful. That prayer is not opposed by counsel opposite.

We accordingly grant four months’ time from today to the petitioners to comply with the impugned orders failing which the contempt petitions pending before the Tribunal can be revived by the concerned petitioners and taken to their logical conclusion.

All impleading and intervention applications are also dismissed.

…………………..J
(T.S. THAKUR)

…………………..J
(R. BANUMATHI)

NEW DELHI
DATED 17th March, 2015.

Related to Your Search:

• Pension Revision Who are absorbed in Central Public Sector Undertakings – Confederation
• Revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners – Pensioners Portal Orders Mar 2015
• Restoration of full pension of absorbee pensioners in view of the order dated 01.09.2016 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6048/2010 and Civil Appeal No. 6371/2010
• GRANT OF MACP ON PROMOTIONAL HIERARCHY: SLP (civil) CC No.10435 of 2014, UOI Vs Babu Ram & Ors
• Restoration of full pension of absorbee pensioners in view of the order dated 01.09.2016 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 604812010 and Civil Appeal No. 637112010
• ACRs with below benchmark grading considered in post DPCs- Regarding
• Stepping up of pay of senior Assistants of CSS drawing less pay on promotion in the Section Officers Grade than their juniors
• DoPT – Increase in salary for senior CSS assistants earns less compensation than their juniors in promotional levels
• Pre 2006 Pensioner’s Court Case: Status as on 01 July 2013